Brian Rogoff wrote:

> > The main difficulties we have faced have been --
> > a) Education - Out here even for people skilled in scheme and some other
> > functional languages, it is challenging to learn ocaml.
> 
> What have the issues been? I hate to mention this again (and again, ...) but
> I find that beginners and non-experts stumble over syntax a lot.

	The main problem is that the Tutorial and Reference are weak.
If the Ocaml Consortium gets off the ground, this ought to be one
of it's first tasks (i.e., hire a tech writer, not a programmer!)

	I am constantly stumbling over syntax: even when the underlying
principles are clear, it is hard to find the right syntax, and it
is even harder to comprehend which constructions are actually
supported by the compiler. My main source of information is postings
to this list.

> I would have said that it's ideal for VLSI design software (any other EDA
> hackers out there?) so maybe it's just ideal for everything?

	No. It isn't so good for low level systems software, (use C or C++)
nor for integration tasks (use C). It should be much better than
Java for everything Java can do, if only library support were extended,
with some core support for security and internet.

-- 
John (Max) Skaller, mailto:skaller@maxtal.com.au
10/1 Toxteth Rd Glebe NSW 2037 Australia voice: 61-2-9660-0850
checkout Vyper http://Vyper.sourceforge.net
download Interscript http://Interscript.sourceforge.net
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr.  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr